Evolution is not a scientific theory

[freediver]

Split from this thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/polanimal/view ... =10#p98131" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More information on why evolution is not a scientific theory:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evol ... heory.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unlike the big bang, which is a completely rational homosexual.

What is your belief Freediver?

You seem to have a lot to say on this issue as well as evolution but I have never seen you reveal your position. Why is that?

Evolution is not a scientific theory. I am not sure about the big bang either. It's not like you can do an experiment on it.

[IQ popping]

Unlike the big bang, which is a completely rational homosexual.

What is your belief Freediver?

You seem to have a lot to say on this issue as well as evolution but I have never seen you reveal your position. Why is that?

Evolution is not a scientific theory. I am not sure about the big bang either. It's not like you can do an experiment on it.

Neither is AGW

[boxy]

Unlike the big bang, which is a completely rational homosexual.

What is your belief Freediver?

You seem to have a lot to say on this issue as well as evolution but I have never seen you reveal your position. Why is that?

Evolution is not a scientific theory. I am not sure about the big bang either. It's not like you can do an experiment on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo ... experiment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regardless of that, you can still have a scientific theory about something that can't be manipulated to provide a direct experimental confirmation. Cosmologists do this all the time. They can't mess around with galaxies, but they can make predictions based on their theories, and further observations will either confirm or deny those predictions. Similar to the way that the theory of evolution by natural selection makes predictions about what will be found in the fossil record, and how species differ across isolated populations.

I can understand some scepticism about the detail of cosmological models, given the knowledge and mathematical ability, needed to evaluate it, but evolution?

Jeeze, just look at what we've done to domesticated animals in the short time we've been messing with them

[Super Nova]

Evolution is not a scientific theory. I am not sure about the big bang either. It's not like you can do an experiment on it.

FD, your statement surprises me. It must be just to get a reaction surely.

Evolution is scientific theory

Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.

[freediver]

boxy the e coli experiment is an experiment in natural selection, not evolution. This in particular is a giveaway:

some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations

Similar to the way that the theory of evolution by natural selection makes predictions about what will be found in the fossil record, and how species differ across isolated populations.

But it does not actually make predictions. It makes explanations after the fact. The few times people have attempted to make prediction, they turned out to be wrong - but that is OK because the theory can always adapt - eg punctuated equilibria.

I can understand some scepticism about the detail of cosmological models, given the knowledge and mathematical ability, needed to evaluate it, but evolution?

It doesn't really have anything to do with skepticism. Scientific and true are not the same. In practice they are opposites.

Jeeze, just look at what we've done to domesticated animals in the short time we've been messing with them

Another great example of the power of natural selection. If someone dug those skeleton's up, they could be forgiven for attributing it to some kind of beneficial mutation.

Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

That is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that it cannot be disproven. It fails the test of falsifiability.

[Super Nova]

I am not sure about the big bang either. It's not like you can do an experiment on it.

Also, the Big Bang is a scientific theory that is progressively been validated.

At the small end they are doing experiements. That is waht the LHC was built for. Also the theory is also being tested on the large scale with continue survalence of the skys with the Hubble and newer satelite telescopes.


Old article below: Link is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7604293.stm

Scientists have hailed a successful switch-on for an enormous experiment which will recreate the conditions a few moments after the Big Bang.

They have now fired two beams of particles called protons around the 27km-long tunnel which houses the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

....


"We will be looking at what the Universe was made of billionths of a second after the Big Bang. That is amazing, that really is fantastic."

....

The favoured model involves a particle called the Higgs boson - dubbed the "God Particle". According to the theory, particles acquire their mass through interactions with an all-pervading field carried by the Higgs.

The latest astronomical observations suggest ordinary matter - such as the galaxies, gas, stars and planets - makes up just 4% of the Universe.

The rest is dark matter (23%) and dark energy (73%). Physicists think the LHC could provide clues about the nature of this mysterious "stuff".

[annielaurie]

Evolution is not a scientific theory. I am not sure about the big bang either. It's not like you can do an experiment on it.

It's hard to believe in this day and age that many people don't get it about evolution, both macro and micro (natural selection)

A couple of points here. First, a scientific Theory is much more than just a "theory" as in its ordinary use, a guess or a hunch.

A scientific Theory is an hypothesis, already backed up by a mountain of proven facts. But science leaves the hypothesis open-ended, in order to learn more. This is the way science works.

Gravity is a theory: the Theory of Gravity. It is still called that. Do any of us doubt for one minute that gravity exists and that it always works the same? Gravity is not a force, either. It is the bending of the fabric of space-time in the presence of objects with mass (such as galaxies, solar systems, planets, moons, etc)

As for the origin of the universe, the singularity that suddenly inflated (no explosion, it was a smooth and soundless expanding, like a balloon blowing up) from a dimensionless "point" of a size something like 10^-22 or smaller, science today has a variety of ways of measuring that. And when science teams work in groups independent of one another around the world, and they continue to get the same mathematical results of their measurements, then its a fact.

Science fact. Many folks still don't understand this.

But with the internet it's easy to get links to peer reviewed publications written by real scientists, easy to get the genuine information, easy to understand how it all works, as much of that is explained to us in layman's terms.

Just look it up!

[Super Nova]

boxy the e coli experiment is an experiment in natural selection, not evolution. This in particular is a giveaway:

some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations

Similar to the way that the theory of evolution by natural selection makes predictions about what will be found in the fossil record, and how species differ across isolated populations.

But it does not actually make predictions. It makes explanations after the fact. The few times people have attempted to make prediction, they turned out to be wrong - but that is OK because the theory can always adapt - eg punctuated equilibria.

This is a large system full of chaos so making precise prediction is diffult. However there are many things that are predicatable based on probabilities.

How genes are transfered is now known and based on a genes relative dominance it is predicatable.
They hav change environment with fast breading flies and have been able to predict and monitor changes after many generations.

The timescales are long..... the evironment is not predicatable.... the process is though.

I can understand some scepticism about the detail of cosmological models, given the knowledge and mathematical ability, needed to evaluate it, but evolution?

It doesn't really have anything to do with skepticism. Scientific and true are not the same. In practice they are opposites.

In practise they are not opposites. Science seeks the truth. A theory can be proven wrong the moment we see a result that is not predicted/expected or the evidence goes against the theory. It generally needs a tweek or needs a full new thoery.

Jeeze, just look at what we've done to domesticated animals in the short time we've been messing with them

Another great example of the power of natural selection. If someone dug those skeleton's up, they could be forgiven for attributing it to some kind of beneficial mutation.

They don't need to be forgiven for attributing it to a beneficial mutation... because they are. They have benefited from their relationship with man. When they are bred for or have attributes man like or need.... they get to continue to breed.

Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

That is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that it cannot be disproven. It fails the test of falsifiability.

It would be falsified if there was evidence that contradicted the theory. That is the standard test. No evidence has been found that contradicts the theory. (it has been refined alittle) There is a clear line from the earliest forms of life to now. The evidence is there.

Now if a god appeared and showed it was otherwise and created a new race animal over night... that might contradictaed the theory. The fact there is no evidence that shows the theory is wrong is no reason to disregard the theory... in fact it should be embraced.

[Super Nova]

[freediver]

It's hard to believe in this day and age that many people don't get it about evolution, both macro and micro (natural selection)

I get the theory. I am just saying it isn't scientific.

A scientific Theory is an hypothesis, already backed up by a mountain of proven facts.

There is no such thing as a 'proven fact' in science. They all end up being disproven.

Gravity is a theory: the Theory of Gravity. It is still called that.

It wasn't in my high school physics textbook.

As for the origin of the universe, the singularity that suddenly inflated (no explosion, it was a smooth and soundless expanding, like a balloon blowing up)

It would have burst your eardrums if you had heard it. It would have also burst your head into subatomic particles.

This is a large system full of chaos so making precise prediction is diffult. However there are many things that are predicatable based on probabilities.

They are commonly referred to as natural selection. Can you predict when a beneficial mutation will happen?

The timescales are long..... the evironment is not predicatable.... the process is though

Making predictions is not enough. You have to be able to actually test them.

In practise they are not opposites. Science seeks the truth. A theory can be proven wrong the moment we see a result that is not predicted/expected or the evidence goes against the theory. It generally needs a tweek or needs a full new thoery.

Eventually the entire paradigm must be discarded and replaced with a better one. That means it is not true. It is by being proven wrong over and over again that science is so powerful.

They don't need to be forgiven for attributing it to a beneficial mutation... because they are. They have benefited from their relationship with man.

It is the mutation bit I was pointing out, not the benefit. Natural selection is also beneficial, but does not require mutation.

It would be falsified if there was evidence that contradicted the theory.

So would my theory that unicorns die if you impale them with their own horns. That doesn't make the theory 'falsifiable' from a scientific perspective.